[editor's note, by jsm]In order to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, the internet's most controversial website is running this article. Written by James Gillespie, an acknowledged bigot and expert on this troubled part of England, it aims to give a balanced view of the incident. In the spirit of peace.

Bloody Sunday is a day remembered by many in Ulster. To Catholics, it is a day of mourning - they see it as the beginning of their protests against the British Crown, and have attached a typically Catholic ideal of martyrdom to those who died there.

The mainland British press has always been very sympathetic to this point of view, but that is hardly surprising, as most of modern Britain (outside some enclaves of Glasgow) finds Ulster embarrassing, and wants to be rid of us, despite our proud British heritage.

That is why I am glad to have been invited to write for Adequacy.org, an unusually open minded website on this topic (for an American site), and describe the real truth behind the events of January 30th, 1972.

The image popularly represented by the Catholic press, and by the mainland British (who seem to be forgetting what it means to be British), is that a group of Catholics were protesting against the practise of internment (a perfectly reasonable anti-terrorist measure, one now adopted by most countries around the world in the light of 9/11 - Britain was just ahead of its time, in this regard) by the British state, and, allegedly, were being oh-so-very innocent and peaceful, before being savagely shot at by British Paratroopers with 13 dying as a result.

But you don't need to do very much research to find holes in this point of view. Think about it. This is the British Army we're talking about here. Not the Nazi Party. Not the Bosnian Serbs. The single most glorious military organisation to have trod the earth since the days of Hannibal himself. Does it sound even remotely likely that these tightly-disciplined heroes would have carried ou a massacre? Least of all, on English soil. I think we need to consider the possibility that the whole damn business was invented, that it never happened outside the imagination of some Noraid fund raiser.

For example, I fire open my copy of Encarta, and what do I find? This:

The British Ministry of Defence claimed that the soldiers began to fire only after two sets of high velocity shots were fired at them and a nail bomb was about to be thrown, adding that they "fired only at identified targets-at attacking gunmen and bombers".

So in other words, the MoD of the United kingdom central government (a government that would love nothing more than to hand Ulster back to the Southern Irish) is here seen trying to defend the actions of its soldierly, actions that could give it the perfect excuse to give Ulster away! Surely only a fool could think that the government tried to cover up something it would find highly advantageous.

So, although the Catholics may claim that the 'protestors' were innocent, it is pretty obvious that they weren't. Doubtless, like many Catholics, they were armed and dangerous, and posing a threat. The British Army is highly unlikely to behave in a murderous fashion, and has historically been hailed for its bravery under fire and its ability to cope with pugnacious protestors (see the recent splendid performance of the Paratroopers in Sarajevo. The Belfast Walk of the paratroopers was a reassuring sight for many a journalist there, the same aspic lipped journos who write off anti-British editorials next week).

No, the martial, highly disciplined work ethic of the Briton is well known, it is highly unlikely that they would fire off an emotional outburst when faced with some past Catholics, and when combined with the evidence above from the British government, we can see that it must surely have been the Catholics who fired off that first fateful shot.

But, of course, this explanation is too simplistic. The Southern Irish Catholics who'd come North for the day for a riot must take their share of blame, sure enough. But it is quite obvious where the real responsbility lies; with the people who had propped up the puppet state of the so-called "People's Republic of Southern Ireland" and its "Irish Royal Army" (IRA) for so long.

In the final analysis, Bloody Sunday was the fault of the United States of America, home of the criminal scum thrown out by the British since 1916. By financing the Loyalist protestors at that march, the Americans directly bear the responsibility for provoking the Royal Irish Army, and their hands are redder than those of Hugh O'Neill ever were.

The tragedy of it all has been the reaction of the press and the media, wrapped around the ringed, bejewelled fingers of the Catholics and, disgracefully, trying to create a mythology of innocence betrayed. I'm glad of this opportunity to set the record straight and point the accusing finger of the Red Hand of Ulster right back where it belongs

although Americans funded the IRA, the country has since made up for its crimes by arresting thousands of terrorists world wide.

At this point the line has been drawn in the sand and it must stand! No country that supports terrorism is innocent, you are either for us or against us in this war. The time for talking is OVER! Our enemies will be destroyed one by one without pity or mercy.

Things that happened in the past cannot be "made up for" simply by arresting a few henchmen of Osama bin Laden (who, with seemingly the whole world searching for him, continues to evade capture). Especially when it was the mighty fine US of A that trained members of the Taliban (meaning: student) in methods of terrorism with the expressed intent of destabilising the USSR (back in the time of the Carter administration, I think).

America will form coalitions when it suits the government, but the final goal is to show the world that the American way is best. Following September 11th, close links were maintained with Britain, and Pakistan was persuaded to help with attacks against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Russia responded with support for the Northern Alliance.
Meanwhile, America adopted a military policy which meant it essentially took sides in the long-running Afghan war, joining forces with any faction which opposed the Taliban. Oh, but with the minimal use of ground forces.

This was a proxy war where the casualities were felt by anti-Taliban militia (+ approx 3000 civilian deaths).

The US government will never hold it's hand up and say, "ok, we got it wrong".

Frank Sinatra pretty much had it right:
"And more, much more than this, I did it my way".

Though it is only a minor point of the article, I would like to commend the way in which the Loyalist Catholics are clearly explained and identified for the benefit of the American reader.

Most Americans, excepting a few learned individuals such as myself, are not intelligent enough to distinguish a National Unionist point of view from that of a Republican Loyalist.

This sort of burbling stupidity in largely illiterate cities like Boston is a prime contributing factor in the tragic ongoing flood of American Dollars into the hands of the leprechaun terrorists.

Thank you for drawing such a clear distinction-- perhaps now it will not be so easy for the door-to-door terrorist fund-raisers to swindle hard-earned American money away from hard-earned American housewives by ducking the issues and moving straight to a quote from Sony Bono of "U2" or an offer of a "free" Riverdance video with the "donation."

As an ignorant American Catholic reader, I don't feel I benefitted at all. The article was confusing, and I still don't know what a National Unionist or a Republican Loyalist is. But I do feel insulted for being blamed for this mess. (Assuming there actually is a mess. I'm way to ignorant on such matters to know.)

The only money I ever sent to Ireland was once overpaying for a U2 concert, and regularly bathing with Irish Spring Soap._
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

not intelligent enough? (3.00 / 1) (#11)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 09:31:50 AM PST

It's Unionist vs Republican. A "Republican Loyalist" is a contradiction in terms since a Loyalist means loyal to the (British) crown. Similarly a Nationalist is another term for a Republican. The Unionists are mostly protestant and want to preserve Northern Irelands union with the rest of the UK, while the Republicans are mostly catholic and want the north to be reunited with the republic (Ireland).

Of course, in the end the republicans will get their way since demographically catholics have more children than protestants.

There's too many Catholics in the governement of the United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland who naturally take their co-religionists viewpoint as ordered by the Vatican.

Why do you think Tony Blair is so eager to cuddle up to the IRA and Eire. His wife is Catholic, he sends his kids to a Catholic school and he attends mass. Therefore he must be a papist stooge of John Paul II. We might as well have Martin McGuiness running the country.

whats the point? (1.33 / 3) (#5)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 03:36:13 AM PST

Please explain the point of this article.

Obviously it is not genuine, but the author seems to lack the necessary skill and knowledge to write a decent parody.

The redsocked fenianista rabble in the City of Londonderry are especially blatant liars. For instance, they go around claiming that they live in a town called "Doiré", which does not even exist on the map! Such consistent mendacity makes it impossible to believe that their version of events could possibly be believed.

@==========@
~~irish out!~~
@==========@

hmm (4.00 / 2) (#8)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 05:37:34 AM PST

ah, king billy, shame you didn't think of that when you took the Pope's shilling.

Go away (4.00 / 2) (#12)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 10:11:31 AM PST

Adequacy.org is not some stupid parody site.

For example, take the next most recent article about Linux Zealots. It's safe to say that OSM really doesn't like Linux Zealots. He's not pretending to be someone who thinks Linux zealots who insist on posting boring comments and diaries are annoying, he actually believes that. Correctly, I might add.

This article is less funny than OSM's but the point is equally clear. Irish-Americans helped fund the IRA and helped cause Bloody Sunday.

Not everything in life is funny and terrorism is one of those not-funny things. Show a little respect for the famillies who lost loved ones.

While it sticks in my craw that such spiteful hatemongering speech be allowed, right thinking editors belonging to the True Church are a minority on this website.

While Mr. Gillespie may have a point or two about how fervent Irish Catholics in Boston may have been misled and made errors of judgement, surely such peccadillos are minor compared to the sins committed by the Anglican heretics (remember, the Anglicans were founded to assist a King in fornication).

So, let us bear this cross of odious in the name of free speech, and allow that such filth will eventually earn Mr. Gillespie and the editors who assisted him their eternal reward.

A. Rightmann

on the IRA (3.00 / 1) (#14)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 04:28:06 PM PST

It is well known that catholics follow an
obscure but long lasting tradition called
'christianity'. The basic tenets of this
religion, as dictated by its founder
around 30 AD, are peace and forgiveness
for all mankind. In fact this leader,
Jesus of Nazareth, was killed by elite
guards of the Roman Empire of much the same level
of discipline as those of the late British Empire.
Thus, is it at all likely that a bunch of
catholics, followers of a pacifist martyr,
would themselves take up arms? The very
idea is patently absurd, especially considering
the catholic martyr tradition that existed
not only in Ireland under the sadomasochistic
homosexual British Imperialism, but the
martyr tradition that stretched back all the way
to the birth of its leader, Jesus Christ.

The liberal press has made much of this so called
'bloody sunday' as though there were a fight
at all. Rather, there was nothing more than
a peaceful demonstration by committed followers
of an obscure pacifist religion with a martyr
tradition thousands of years older than the
Britsh Empire itself, let alone the English
Language. It is well known that the 'strict
discipline' of any troops of any Empire will
instill a great deal of stress that can explode
into civilian massacres, just as happened
to the great American forces in Vietnam, or
even to Hannibals generals when they fled Italy.

So come now, let's not throw out the baby
with the bathwater.

Only 13 dead? (2.00 / 1) (#17)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 10:19:51 PM PST

Only 13 dead, thats nothing - it's not as if the English have killed thousands of Irish, oh wait a second, they have.

This cannot be a serious artical. To be so would spit in the faces of those already harmed by the actions of the British Army on bloody sunday.
While I respect your right to an opinion of bloody sunday, I cannot agree in any way with the way in which you have presented it. You seem to wish to incite yet further anger over this event (of which there has been far too much already) by taking an attitude I would not be supprised to hear comming from the BNP. I would urge you to please remove this artical from your website, it would be much better placed elsewhere

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective
companies.
Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org.
The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most
Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source
Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part
of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written
permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by
the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to
legal@adequacy.org.